Back and Forth
It seems like only yesterday that Michael Oren was assuring us that the only thing for Israel to do was bomb Syria. After all, "Israel may hammer Lebanon into submission and it may deal Hezbollah a crushing blow, but as long as Syria remains hors de combat there is no way that Israel can effect a permanent change in Lebanon's political labyrinth and ensure an enduring ceasefire in the north." Today, though, there's no talk of attacking Syria whatsoever. Instead, Israel needs to reoccupy Lebanon south of the Litani: "Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's response has caused much suffering and generated growing international controversy. Yet if concluded with an incontrovertible setback for Hezbollah, Israel's security can be bolstered and Lebanese sovereignty restored."
Sovereignty restored, one notes, through the foreign military occupation of a substantial bulk of its territory. The whole thing is baffling. Elsewhere on TNR.com John Judis is making sense on a related subject.
The more you find out about the Bush administration the worse it gets. Normally when terrible decisions are made, the reality at least informs you as you move forward. Bush, unfortunately, has also executed so incompetently that we are still left with those arguing that the idea was sound if only it had been executed with more skill.
August 2, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this statement by Judis was odd. Does the first part (honest broker) really imply the second (equal moral claims)? Couldn't the role of the U.S. as an honest broker mean simply that, an honest broker, i.e. someone seeking to broker the claims in a fair and equitable manner today, rather than taking a stance on issues from 1948? Is that really the conventional understanding of the term?
America's role as an honest broker was most recently put forward by the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. This does not mean, as is sometimes charged, ascribing moral equivalence to the particular actions of Israelis and Arabs, but rather acknowledging that, in the wake of the Holocaust, the Jews and Arabs in Palestine had equal moral claims to a homeland in that area. As Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann, put it, "The conflict between ourselves and the Palestinians is not a conflict of justice against injustice, but a conflict between two equal rights."
August 2, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel might not get the chance to occupy the entire southern region of Lebanon. The IDF is moving slowly and the creation of a multi-national force is moving faster than expected.
By taking on Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel helps to defang the Iranian nuclear problem. This makes nukes less useful to Iran. But it means that Israeli security is on the same bargaining table as the Iranian nuclear program, and Israel might not like the results.
The MNF may turn out to be an irritant to both sides. It is likely to avoid trouble from Hezbollah by bothering the Israelis in one way or another. Will it occupy Lebanon but not Israel? Rumor has it that the troops will be from Germany, France, Turkey and Australia, among others. I'd guess Pakistan too? I'd also bet they ask for air support from the US.
What will the MNF do when Hezbollah attacks them? Anything? What will France do when Hezbollah kidnaps French MNF troops?
Attempts to really disarm Hezbollah will cause them to retreat north and also east to Syria, until things calm down. Maybe they'll sit in Syria attacking the MNF over the border like they did recently to Israel. If one MNF country pulls out in response to kidnapping or terrorism will the others stay?
By and by Hezbollah may get missiles that can hit Israel from north of the Litani river. Maybe anti-missile systems can help against these higher, longer flights. Maybe not. If that situation lasts until Iran gets nukes then things will get hot. Again.
August 3, 2006 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink